NOTICE u/s 131 of IT act - REPLY to be made

[Harish Swami]

My client was named by a third party who was trapped by ATS authorities during transporting old currency notes of 500 and 1000.

Summon issued by Department on reference issue.

Obviously Client should deny the onus or shall name further of the persons actually owner of the currency.

Can you suggest me better remedy?

AI Summary

Client Faces Penalties Under Specific Bank Notes Act, 2017 for Holding Old Currency Despite Pre-Law Seizure Claim. A client was implicated by authorities for possessing old currency notes after being named by a third party caught transporting them. A summon was issued by the Income Tax Department. An advisor suggested that even if the client identifies the true owners of the currency, penalties or punishment could still apply. The client argued that the currency was seized before laws prohibiting possession of more than ten notes came into effect. The advisor clarified that while deposits were allowed until December 31, 2016, holding such notes after this date is illegal, with penalties outlined in the Specific Bank Notes Act, 2017.